Settlement burials existed in dynastic Egypt, like in other agricultural societies throughout the world. Since the ancient Egyptians thought that the dead should be separated from the living, it is important to consider the meaning of this. This paper carries out a comprehensive study of settlement burials in dynastic Egypt.

　Although both children and adults were buried within settlements, the interments of the latter always pre- or post-date the period of occupancy of the settlement. It is therefore possible to say that the separation of the dead and the living was carried out for adult burials. For analysis in this study, settlement burials are divided into three types based on the age of the deceased and the simultaneity of burial and settlement: (Type 1) child burials contemporary with a settlement, (Type 2) pre- or post-dated settlement burials only children were interred, and (Type 3) pre- or post-dated settlement burials where children and adults were mixed.

　The age distributions for Type 1 and 2 are somewhat different: the former type is exclusively of children under six months old, while the latter also includes children of up to two years. This tendency suggests that “true” settlement burial in dynastic Egypt may have been a burial custom only for fetuses and very young infants, and that nursing children were at least buried in settlements, even if in houses already abandoned. Except for the age distribution, the difference between Type 1 and 2 is obscure. Since some Type 2 burials were found in the same space as Type 1, these might share the perceptions of the place as a burial site. Other Type 2 burials seem to follow the idea of separation of the dead from the living. The variety of child settlement burials suggests that the ancient Egyptians treated the young dead as having a different kind of existence from the adult dead.

The late Second Temple period was a time when Jews had to confront different cultures, especially Hellenism. Understanding the changes in their burial practices during this period will help to clarify their relationship with different cultures.

The origin of loculi tombs, a type of tomb which appeared during the second century BC, has been debated by various researchers, and in recent years the mainstream theory has been that although they originated in the surrounding area, they also inherited traditional elements from Iron Age II Israel. However, these studies are not quantitative, and research on the tombs’ internal structures that are taken to be ethnic markers is scarce. Therefore, in this paper, I clarify the changes in the internal form of the loculi tombs in Jerusalem in order to elucidate some aspects of the way Jews buried their dead in the face of different cultures.

The analysis reveals that most of the loculi tombs from the second to first centuries BCE have features in common with the earlier bench tombs, such as burial chambers with pits, especially U-shaped burial chambers, and collections of bones, indicating that it is likely that familial burial practices continued. On the other hand, in the first century CE, pit structures declined and flat types became the majority, with a slight increase in auxiliary structures. These trends may be related to the increased use of ossuaries. It is also clear that the form of the loculi had remained constant until the second century BCE, but then was changed to make it suitable for Jewish reburial. These results suggest that while the Jews were confronted with different cultures, there was little influence on burial, but rather that they developed their own burial system, incorporating the loculi structure into their reburials.

Since most of the Middle Kingdom shaft tombs in Egypt have been thoroughly plundered, until now analyses of cemeteries have relied on the patchy evidence of the remaining objects. However, the subterranean structure of the tombs was usually unaffected by robbery. It is possible to complement the lack of information and obtain an overall view of the cemeteries by analyzing these structures. This paper examines the date, social status of the owner, and orientation of the shaft tombs in Dahshur North.

   This paper classified shaft tombs into six types by form and three groups by size, Small, Middle and Large. Tombs with datable objects were sorted in chronological order, but analysis showed that there is little relationship between type, size and date. In contrast, a marked correlation between size and social status of the owner was observed. The burial equipment of the Middle and Large groups was superior both in quality and quantity to that of the Small group, and the former groups were equipped with objects of the "court-type burial" a style common at the highest social level in royal cemeteries during the late Middle Kingdom. The relation between social difference and tomb size was also demonstrated by the much greater expense of digging the larger shaft tombs.

   As for the orientation, the long axes of the twelfth to early thirteenth dynasty tombs were oriented north-south, while those of the early thirteenth dynasty or later tombs were oriented almost northwest-southeast. It is assumed the difference is because there is a late twelfth dynasty pyramid to the east of Dahshur North, and a mid-thirteenth dynasty pyramid to the northeast. Therefore it is probable that people buried in Dahshur North were closely related to the elite class buried in the royal cemeteries.